Cloud costs require active management, and platform engineers need tools that fit seamlessly into their workflows rather than standalone dashboards. Traditional FinOps tools struggle with the dynamic nature of containerized workloads, shared resources, and self-service provisioning. Key challenges include a focus on cost savings instead of maximizing business value, lack of visibility into granular costs, integration issues with existing tools, and the risk of infrastructure sprawl due to ungoverned self-service. A structured framework called the 4Rs—Report, Recommend, Remediate, and Retain—provides a roadmap for effective cost management. The article emphasizes the importance of evaluating FinOps tools through a platform engineering lens. Essential requirements include Kubernetes-native visibility for accurate cost attribution, an API-first architecture for easy integration, GitOps and Infrastructure as Code (IaC) compatibility, and support for multi-cloud environments. Non-functional requirements also matter, such as automated governance and integration with GreenOps for sustainability metrics. Several platforms are highlighted for their capabilities. IBM’s suite combines Cloudability, Turbonomic, and Kubecost, offering deep Kubernetes integration and automated optimization, though integration is ongoing. Flexera One excels in hybrid environments with strong policy enforcement but lags in Kubernetes-specific features. CloudHealth from Broadcom is noted for its multi-cloud governance but faces uncertainty due to recent acquisitions. Each tool has strengths and weaknesses, making it essential for platform teams to match their specific needs with the right solution.